The Riverside Group Limited (202337061)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337061

The Riverside Group Limited

22 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs it committed to completing in a previous complaint.
2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 2-bedroom house. She viewed the property in May 2023, when it was empty, and moved in on 26 June 2023.
On 7 November 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary she said that several repairs the landlord committed to completing before she started her tenancy were still outstanding. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to this complaint on 24 November 2023. In this, the landlord apologised, confirmed the outstanding repairs, and gave a commitment that they would be completed.
On 15 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again. In summary she said:
1. after her complaint in November 2023 the landlord had provided a date to complete some of the outstanding repairs.
2. on the appointment on 3 January 2024, the contractor was late, came alone for a 2-person job and did not complete the work. Because of this she was unable to use the shower.
3. following this appointment, a leak in her bathroom ceiling appeared. The landlord gave her an appointment for 15 January 2024, but this was cancelled on the day, because the contractor was unwell.
4. she had been given an appointment for 6 February 2024 to complete work on the windows.
5. she had not been given an appointment for the other repair work.
6. she had not been given an appointment for the electrical work.
7. she had taken multiple days off work for repairs which should have been completed before she moved in and will still have to take more time off.
8. she wanted the outstanding issues to be resolved and compensation for loss of earnings and inconvenience.
The resident chased the landlord for a response and sought our help. We asked the landlord to provide its response by 25 March 2024 and because it failed to, we issued a complaint handling failure order (CHFO). In this, we ordered the landlord to issue its response by 16 April 2024.
On 9 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it:
1. confirmed the outstanding issues and provided an appointment for 2 of those.
2. said the resident had requested a call after Easter to book in the further work.
3. said it had ordered an extractor fan and was awaiting an update on its installation date.
4. said it would manage her complaint through to the completion of the work and keep her updated.
5. apologised for the delays and disruptions and offered £100 compensation as redress.
On 24 April 2024 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. Throughout several calls and emails with the landlord she said she:
1. wanted the outstanding work to be completed by 9 July 2024.
2. wanted the landlord to reconsider its compensation.
3. could not afford to take any more time off work unless she was paid for loss of earnings.
4. had told the landlord to contact her before any repair appointments were made. Despite this an appointment had been made for 24 June 2024, and although she cancelled this the contractor still came.
5. had taken numerous days of unpaid leave and sickness to accommodate repairs. She provided dates of these on the landlord’s request for it to consider her loss of earnings.
6. wanted a shower screen to be fitted rather than a shower pole for a curtain.
On 9 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it:
1. explained the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and providing its response. It apologised and offered a £50 gift voucher as redress for this.
2. explained why it would not be able to offer financial redress for the resident’s loss of earnings.
3. explained why it could not install a shower screen as a goodwill gesture.
4. said it had been unable to identify any further failings and reiterated its previous offer of £100 compensation.
When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, she said as a resolution she wanted increased compensation for the impact these issues had on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us that she has been unable to work at times due to the stress of dealing with this issue. We are sorry to hear about this and acknowledge the difficulties she has faced.
The courts are the most effective place to deal with claims about personal injury. As we are an informal alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue a personal injury claim. We can, however, consider the impact of any failings by the landlord, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has said her complaint relates to repairs which should have been completed before she moved into the property. She first complained about this on 7 November 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 November 2023. In this response it said the complaint was closed but also provided information on how the resident could escalate this if she remained unhappy.
When she complained again to the landlord on 15 January 2024, the resident told us this was to escalate her complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord’s complaint policy states “once a complaint has been closed at stage one, the customer then has 30 working days to come back and say they are not happy with the resolution. After 30 days has elapsed from the date of resolution any further complaints should be logged as new complaints.” The landlord was, therefore, entitled to raise a new complaint on 15 January 2024, as this was 34 working days after the previous complaint closed.
We are unable to investigate matters that have not completed a landlord’s internal complaint process. Since the resident’s complaint of 7 November 2023 ended at stage 1 and did not complete that process, we cannot investigate how the landlord handled that complaint or the matters it investigated in that.
However, since the new complaint relates to what the landlord committed to doing in its response on 24 November 2023, we can consider its commitment and events from that point. Therefore, for clarity, our investigation will focus on events between 24 November 2023 and 9 August 2024 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of repairs it committed to completing in a previous complaint.

On 24 November 2023 the landlord committed to completing the following:
1. the replacement of damaged wood and wall structures in the lower-level bathroom, attributable to water leakage.
2. installation of new flooring in the front room, necessitated by damage stemming from the before mentioned bathroom leak.
3. remediation of damp and mould on the front room wall, including washing and repainting, because of the leak in the bathroom.
4. repair of front door-unable to open and lock properly.
5. repair of vent in front bedroom-broken off.
6. repair of window in front bedroom-has broken hinge, hangs down.
7. replacement of tiles in bathroom.
8. repair of broken socket in front bedroom.
9. replacement of broken extractor fan in bathroom.
10. repair of loft light switch.
11. replacement of downstairs bathroom light fixture/rose.
It is not disputed that these repairs should have been resolved before the resident moved into the property, in line with the landlord’s empty homes standard. However, as previously mentioned, this assessment must consider the landlord’s response to these repairs from 24 November 2023, when the landlord acknowledged the issues and committed to repairing them.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days (or 56 days in extreme circumstances). However, almost 5 months later, when the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 April 2024, there were still numerous issues outstanding. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2024, it said all the repairs had been completed by 9 July 2024.
The landlord’s repair history shows that only a small number of these issues were attended in line with its responsive repairs policy. The majority of these were not repaired in line with this policy, and the landlord has not provided any evidence that there were any exceptional circumstances which prevented it from doing so. We acknowledge that there was a brief period the resident was unavailable over a holiday period. However, this did not have a significant impact on the time taken for the landlord to complete the repairs.
The delays to complete these repairs caused considerable inconvenience to the resident, who had to make herself available for numerous appointments for issues which should have been completed prior to the start of her tenancy. She also had the time and trouble of chasing the landlord to complete these repairs over an extended period.
The landlord acknowledged the delay and used its stage 1 response to apologise and award compensation for this. When the resident escalated her complaint, her key point was her unhappiness with the level of compensation offered for the impact of the landlord’s failings. One of the benefits of a 2 stage complaints process is that a different person will review the original decision to ensure a fair assessment of the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had “been unable to identify any additional failings other than those identified at stage one of your complaint when we offered £100 in way of an apology”. Given it had taken a further 3 months since it had issued its stage 1 response to complete the repairs, the landlord’s response was not accurate. It also failed to make clear if the landlord had considered its offer of compensation, or if it remained satisfied that its offer was proportionate for the further delays.
The landlord failed to provide an explanation of why the repair delays had occurred or what it had learnt from this, to prevent it happening again. The compensation for the impact of the delays was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report; therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these repairs.
An order of £500 compensation for the resident has been made below, in line with our remedies guidance.
It is noted that the resident disputes that all repairs were completed by 9 July 2024. She has told us that she had to install a shower curtain pole, which ought to have been included in the repair on 9 July 2024. We have made an order below in relation to this.

The landlord’s handling of the residents associated complaint.

The resident raised her complaint on 15 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged this on 27 March 2024 and 4 April 2024, and issued its response on 9 April 2024.
The resident had to go to significant effort to get the landlord’s stage 1 response. She had to chase the landlord for a response and seek our help. We asked the landlord to provide its response and because it failed to, we issued a CHFO, which ordered the landlord to issue this. This was not reasonable and caused the resident more time and trouble.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 2 working days. And it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It also states that any extension to the review of the complaint should not go beyond a further 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
The landlord failed to raise, acknowledge, or respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and this was a failure, which contributed to the overall delay in resolving the complaint.
The landlord used its stage 1 response to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. While it was appropriate it did this, its response lacked empathy and did not demonstrate that it understood the resident’s effort to obtain a response. This is likely to have caused further frustration to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged this 34 working days later, on 12 June 2024. And issued its response, 76 working days later, on 9 August 2024. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord has not provided any reason for this delay, or any evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident. This was a further failure, which demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from its delay failures at stage 1.
The landlord used its stage 2 response to acknowledge and apologise for this delay and offered a £50 gift voucher as redress for this. Its apology for this failure lacked sincerity and failed to capture the impact of its continued complaint handling failures throughout its complaint process. This was a failure.
The landlord also used its stage 2 response to explain the reasons it could not pay the residents loss of earnings. Its compensation policy allows it to consider financial redress “if a customer has taken time off from work and the contractor has failed to attend, without cancelling the appointment at least 24 hours in advance”. Therefore, it was appropriate it provided this explanation to the resident.
Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Although the landlord acted fairly by offering compensation to the resident for its complaint handling failures, the compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. The fact the landlord repeated the same complaint handling failures in stage 2 that it had in stage 1, demonstrates a lack of learning and improvement.
The complaint handling failures caused a further delay in the resident obtaining a resolution. This is likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had already experienced a significant delay in resolving the repair issue, which this complaint related to.
Overall, the compensation awarded did not go far enough to put things right, and the landlord failed to learn from its errors. This amounts to maladministration, and we have ordered additional compensation below, in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs it committed to completing in a previous complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £750 compensation. This is inclusive of any offers previously made by the landlord and is made up of:
  1. £500 compensation for the impact of the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. £250 compensation for the impact of the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. consider if financial redress is appropriate for the resident’s purchase of a shower curtain pole.
4. provide us evidence that it has complied with these orders.